January 1, 2006


Bush Defends Spying Program as 'Necessary' to Protect U.S. (Lisa Rein, 1/01/06, Washington Post)

"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America, and I repeat limited," Bush said before flying back to Washington after six days cloistered on his ranch in Crawford, Tex. "I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking.

"If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why."

When our grandkids ask us how the Democrats became the permanent minority, we'll just tell them that they were the kind of party who thought it was good politics to pretend that they didn't want to know why al Qaeda was calling.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 1, 2006 11:25 PM

And if those grandkids are of a historical bent of mind they will consider the parallels between the Democrats and the Prussian and Russian agents in the pre-partition Polish Sejm who frustrated reform and action against the enemy until their country was ruined.

Who knows? By then the historical record may have expanded to take in what secret assurances of American inaction were given to the North Vietnamese before they dared to invade South Vietnam.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 2, 2006 7:24 AM

Yeah, well, should have thought about al qaeda calling when they were calling the leadership, and we were calling them, not all that long ago. You play with terrorists, you get into trouble with them from time to time. Didn't your mother teach you anything? Instead of grooming bin Laden and crew over the years, not to mention Saddam, remember, when the left were being called "anti-Americans" for protesting his gassing of his own people WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING, by the same short-sighted hypocrites who now prance around proclaiming their patriotism, though it's only a pseuso-patriotism at best, they should have listened to those "anti-American" leftists like Chomsky who only had the foresight to easily deduce that there would be the predictable backlash. Hence, just more "proof" that he "hates his country". Art least proof by those whose IQ is half the number of their shoe size. Geez! How many times do you guys have to be taught a lesson? There are only about a hundred examples of other similar events. And I'm not even mentioning the "If you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist" which a few in the U.S. are guilty of right now. Of course, this isn't actually accurate. It's the entire country which is guilty assuming we apply the same rules to ourselves which we do to others. I mean, if we're not hypocrites and all. OJ. do you guys choose not to know the most elementary facts about what your own country participates in, or are you taught to ignore it, or is the indoctrination just so great that the cognitive dissonance just doesn't let it compute? I can help you if you really want help, but you have to want to rid yourself of this disease. I would compare it to alcoholism, but it's actually worse. Anyway, when are you going to write about the NYT playing it's role as state propagandist by NOT reporting the crimes of the Bush administrations spying and illegally imprisoning people? Here, let's have a look by someone a little more perceptive than the current American "leader":

“Even Winston Churchill, in the middle of the Second World War, condemned the use of executive power to imprison people without charge as the most odious of crimes, found only in Nazi and Communist societies.” (p. 37)Chomsky

Posted by: kb at January 2, 2006 7:49 AM

KB: Every word of that is a lie, including "and" and "the." I'll do you the favor, however, of assuming that you're ignorant rather than dishonest. Go read a book.

In particular, Ossama was never our creature. He funded "Arabs" participating in the Afghan war while we funded Afghanis. He had no connection with us. Al Qaeda had no connection with us. As for Saddam, we've been over this a hundred times, but for the record: he was not ours, though we made common cause with him when Iran turned the tide of the war and invaded. He was a Soviet client.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 2, 2006 9:24 AM

Of course, the Guardian has revealed that Churchill be executed without trial, and the Times points out that
he preferred Gandhi, die in his hunger strike, and the
Attlee govt. held a prison camp for German nationals
for two years.

Posted by: narciso at January 2, 2006 9:28 AM

Churchill was quite correct that Gandhi should have been allowed to die in his hunger strike? Lots of the problems on the Indian sub-continent would have been averted.

Does anyone know why trolls don't organize their comments into paragraphs? I'm glad David and Michael in a previous post have the patience to follow kb's ramblings and if they say that every word is a lie, that's good enough for me.

Thanks guys.

Posted by: erp at January 2, 2006 10:13 AM

KB's just mad because he can't type 3 sentences without saying either that Saddam was our guy or referring to Chomsky. And he gets his chops busted every time.

Posted by: sharon at January 2, 2006 10:40 AM

to answer him is to invite him to keep wasting bandwidth. he has nothing to say that is worth hearing. let him stew in his ignorance until the day arrives when he can't maintain his fantasy state and takes the kervorkian express out of town.

Posted by: don't feed fools at January 2, 2006 12:08 PM